Daughters of Cain, Sons of Seth, Fallen Angels Oh My

In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also

They weren't saved through water, they were from water by a boat, supposedly.

Some will require fire, as the thread states. The Eight that are saved is the temporal equivalent of the octave, or Sunday both being the first an
eighth day of the week. Eight is the octagon shape of most baptismal pools. Eight is the circumcision of the flesh, or the cutting away of sin
(Chet). Eight is all of these and more: EIGHT

When the dove descended on Christ, it was the same shadow of the dove Noah sent out from the ark.

Genesis 8:11 When the dove returned to him in the evening, there in its beak was a freshly plucked olive leaf! Then Noah knew that the water had
receded from the earth.

A dove is peace. When Christ entered the temple, he overturned the tables of the moneychangers and the benches of those selling doves (peace). The
sign of the end is when the money is turned to debt and there is no more left for the peacemakers to purchase peace. The peacemakers have no rest.

The sign the baptism of water is over is when the dove descends. This is the Holy Spirit on mankind at the end of the sixth day. The beasts were in
pairs (male and female), but clean and unclean. We are in the Ark with both the righteous and unrighteous. All of us are here to remove judgment of
each other. Once we do, peace descends.

Romans 2

2 You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because
you who pass judgment do the same things. 2 Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3 So when you, a
mere human being, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment? 4 Or do you show contempt for the
riches of his kindness, forbearance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness is intended to lead you to repentance?

5 But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his
righteous judgment will be revealed. 6 God “will repay each person according to what they have done.”[a] 7 To those who by persistence in doing
good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8 But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil,
there will be wrath and anger. 9 There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10
but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11 For God does not show favoritism.

--Fire for those who do not love others. We are all sinners. ALL! Don't believe me, simply read Romans 3.

Putting out fire with water requires fruit. What is the fruit? Declaring the true name. Taking that name as your own character. That name
overcomes the beast in the ark.

Romans 10

5 Moses writes this about the righteousness that is by the law: “The person who does these things will live by them.”[a] 6 But the righteousness
that is by faith says: “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’” (that is, to bring Christ down) 7 “or ‘Who will
descend into the deep?’”[c] (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8 But what does it say? “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and
in your heart,”[d] that is, the message concerning faith that we proclaim: 9 If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in
your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your
mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. 11 As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.”[e] 12 For there is
no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13 for, “Everyone who calls on the name
of the Lord will be saved.”[f]

14 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they
hear without someone preaching to them? 15 And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those
who bring good news!”

And yet God still said that He would destroy the earth with fire the next time.

The ark given for that escape is Jesus Christ. Remember that God Himself shut that door on the ark. The same idea is expressed in the story of the
five foolish and five wise virgins.

The door was shut to the five foolish virgins. Once God shuts that door, no man opens it. As God said "my spirit will not always strive with man",
there will come an end to all of this, and the next end will be by fire. Jesus baptizes with the Holy Ghost and with fire. Yes, the dove came down,
representing the Holy Ghost. But it was the olive branch the dove carried in its mouth that represented peace. The dove represents the Holy Ghost, not
the peace itself. As peace is found in the Holy Ghost, even at the end, there will be no dove given.

That's it, once the door is shut, there is no man who can open it.

Luke 13:25 When once the master of the house is risen up, and hath shut to the
door, and ye begin to stand without, and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, Lord, open unto us; and he shall answer and say unto you, I know you not
whence ye are:

But as long as God keeps the door open, no man can shut it.

Revelation 3:8 I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no
man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name.

The door is open right now, but will not be forever, because God will not always strive with man.

Genesis 6:3 And the Lord said, My spirit shall
not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

If Noah is a type and a shadow of the coming Christ in those days, and then Christ came and ascended, then as coming again, as the days of Noah, then
God has prepared an ark, which is Christ. One day, God will end it all and shut that door just as He did for Noah's ark. And then those who are
outside, will never get in.

Genesis 7:16 And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: and the Lord shut
him in.

As Jesus said, the door will be shut and only those who are in before the door is shut, those will be the saved and there will never be another peace
offering given on this earth, there will be no more turtledoves offered in the sacrificial fire, that's it, the end. Jesus said "it is finished".
The last peace offering was made at that moment. There are no more offerings that can be made that God will accept.

If it is the case that each family worshiped a patron god, then Cain had a particular god for his family and Seth had one for his, two competing
religious systems in the ancient world. The Sethite view would then be what the ancient Hebrews followed, because their line of descent is through
Seth.

If Cain was not the seed of Adam but was the seed of the serpent (Satan) then I do lean towards Seth and Cain having each their own God. Yes, the
linage is counted from Adam to Seth and down to Noah but then all of those generations of people before Noah were destroyed in the flood. But bear in
mind that the only reason Seth is regarded as the progenitor of Adam’s lineage is that Seth is the first to actually procreate the seed of his
father. So actually all generations are counted from Seth since Adam's Father was his God. (I hope that makes sense) --

All of the Hebrew bible was tradition at one time and I do lean towards the tradition that Cain was not of Adams seed. I believe that is the reason
that all generations of Adam's seed before the flood were of Seth. Not that the family scepter was passed to Seth but only to show the family tree.

Now after the flood is another story. All human life was erased except for the seed of Noah. This put Noah as the progenitor of the human race and
Shem as his caregiver. The youngest of the clan was traditionally the fathers help meet. Japheth was the oldest son while Ham was the youngest but as
Ham had disgraced his father it was Shem who became the caregiver of the clan. Now all that means is that the youngest was considered to be the
longer living and naturally more likely to carry on family tradition. Ham was a type and shadow of Cain and through Ham the God of Noah was not
honored. This was enlarged through Nimrod who was totally degenerated and was the father of almost all degeneracy.

After Noah died Shem took the scepter of the clan and automatically assumed the responsibilities of Noah and his God. Shem was known as the
Melchizedek and both he and Noah had established an academy in the Jerusalem area. This is where we find Abraham returning home from conquering the
five kings of Sodom and meeting Shem who was the priest of his God. Abraham was well acquainted with Shem as he had attended his academy in his
youth. (so tradition says) This meeting took place in Shem’s old age and near his death and is when the scepter was passed from Shem to Abraham.

A very good study that will really open your eyes is to read and digest “The Two Babylons” by Alexander Hislop. I believe you can download this
free.

By what I have been taught you are correct. There were two distinct beliefs in a God between Seth and Cain and that Cain’s father was of Satan
while Seth’s father was of the God of Adam. The unrepentant Cain shows his disrespect and hatred not only to his brother but to his God from the
very onset of civilization. By tradition we are then to believe that this linage which reverts back to Adam was preserved as more of a family tree
than of a religious nature. After the flood we can also see that a similar thing occurred with Noah and Ham.

And some thing also that are not mentioned, what lines were the wives of? We don't know, we only know that it was Noah who was proclaimed to be pure
in his generations.

It could be very possible the wives carried in them those other bloodlines. That's not saying the women themselves were evil, it just means that they
could have carried in them those negative things, but at the same time, God still had mercy on them because the salvation was for the house of Noah,
that included those women. Even at the ultimate destruction at that time, God still had mercy on them and whoever would have come onto the ark.

But Noah's house was saved. So God has mercy on families even if some people in the family are really bad. But it seems God was saving houses then to
individuals. But like the promise is given, that if you are faithful and endure to the end, that you and your house will be saved. Just get the house
in the ark.

We see in Genesis 1:1 that God (elohim) created the world, but we see that it was the Lord who came to speak to Adam and Eve.

Here is the whole exchange...

3 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye
shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

Notice here, two different names, Adonai Elohim and Elohim.

He is cleverly playing here the two different meanings. Adonai Elohim is the Creator and the one who came to talk to Adam and Eve, but then Satan asks
"did Elohim say?"

See, that's the clever and subtle method of introducing into the mix that even though Adam and Eve knew Adonai Elohim, or simply the Lord God.

But Eve then says

3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye
touch it, lest ye die.

She replies that it was Elohim who said it, but she didn't say Adonai Elohim said it.

Then the next line

4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Right there, as she says that it was Elohim who said it, Satan replies that Elohim knows and then tells her that they shall become as gods, to know
right from wrong. Notice here, he didn't say they would become like Elohim, but as gods.

But then, here we see again...

8 And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid
themselves from the presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of the garden.

9 And the Lord God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?

It immediately reverts back to Adonai Elohim. It is clear here that Adonai Elohim is one of the Elohim.

13 And the Lord God said unto the woman,
What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.

14 And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy
belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

There was a reason the writer wanted us to notice this. Adonai Elohim and Elohim. Adonai Elohim means "Lord God", but as Elohim is a plural word,
then Adonai Elohim is Lord among the Gods, or chief among the gods.

This is not a monotheistic view, but right at the beginning there was a polytheistic view. But it was Adonai Elohim who cursed the serpent. It goes on
to say

22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also
of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

Again, we can't escape the plurality. The "royal WE" was not used in that time. Then we hear it expressed later by Moses in the Shema and by Jesus
repeating it Shema Y'Israel, Adonai Eloheinu Adonai echad".

Joshua said "you may serve the gods of your fathers from before the flood, as for me and my house we will serve Adonai". There was a polytheistic
view in Genesis and I think it will be very hard to say there wasn't given the fact that it is mentioned in many places in the Bible.

But Joshua was saying "This Adonai, this is who we serve".

This is the best answer I can give you, but the text is making a distinction in Adonai Elohim and Elohim.

Notice here, two different names, Adonai Elohim and Elohim. He is cleverly playing here the two different meanings. Adonai Elohim is the Creator and
the one who came to talk to Adam and Eve, but then Satan asks "did Elohim say?"

No. I don't notice that. But, what does it matter? You're basically saying that Satan used some kind of semantic bait and switch to confuse and
confound Eve. As if she didn't know who said what, or what?

The text says that the serpent, basically, called God a liar and a scaredy-cat. A liar because they won't die, and sacred that they will become like
the gods. The decision to believe the serpent's logic about why they should disregard God's command, biblically speaking, had nothing to do with Eve
being confused as to who issued the command.

The biblical text is obvious in its language that Adam was paternal father of Cain. This logic that some of us, members of the human race, are sired
from Satan, while others are sired from GOD himself, that some of have hope and others don't, that some of us have souls and others don't, that some
of us SHOULD be eliminated from the face of the earth because of a dirty gene pool, is an unhealthy line of logic in justifying past actions and wars
in the name of your God and telltale in your of viewing your fellow man.

This is the best answer I can give you, but the text is making a distinction in Adonai Elohim and Elohim.

You have to look for the subtlety. Today he is doing the same thing, you can become a god. Do you think you can become or are a god?

And you don't know my genetic makeup or ancestry, but I can send you the raw data file if you wish. Since you don't know my ancestry then you can't
make that claim that I view others that way. What it will show you is the 2.9% Neanderthal, which is really interesting. The other parts of ancestry
is from Europe and the Middle East, and not only that, clearly the descendant of Attila the Hun and Grandfather Genghis Khan. Isn't that awesome?

My mtDNA haplotype is T2b and some really cool people have that. Jesse James is one, Tzar Nicholas Romanoff is another and just for fun, Barbara of
Celje.

I am also descended from Moroccan Barbary Coast pirates, which means that I have an ancestor that was Muslim and African, and it wasn't 10,000 years
ago, just about 500 years ago. And not only that, I have a Native American ancestor from the Monacan tribe, which is really awesome as that was in the
Powhatan Confederacy at Jamestown,Virginia.

But then, I am also descended from Sephardi Jews from Spain.

How interesting this all is to me, but since you didn't know, I suppose that to you, that's how I would look on other people, to you. I've got too
many groups in the admixture, but which one of them do you think I would say are serpent seeds and worthy to look down upon?

Thanks for the picture and explanation you gave. I will keep this and try to search a little more. That is a very interesting perspective you have.
I did a search on your article in Me Am Lo'ez (Oral Torah) and Pishon is believed to be the Nile and surrounds the land of Chavilah which some
believe to be India. It had ten tributaries and is at its most narrow point believed to have been eight mile broad. It is recorded that Cyrus (King
of Persia) had a survey completed and that he found 440 tributaries. I could not go any further on this with out a restricted access to particular
libraries. King Cyrus also found bdellium and onyx stones. There are seven grades of gold and on that river they found the highest grade of gold.
That is why Genesis calls it good.

The second river is simply called Gichon which surrounds the land of Cush. I found that odd that nothing more was said.

The third river is called Chidekel which flows to the east of Asshur. They called this the Tigris which surrounds the part near Baghdad. They called
this light water and loud rapid flowing water.

The fourth river is the largest of them all. This they called the Euphrates (P'rath) which encompasses the holy land. The Euphrates means Fruitful
because everthing the waters touch becomes fruitful. Even though the book of Daniel calls the Tigris the great river (Daniel 10:4) it is not larger
than the Euphrates. The Euphrates is kinown as quiet waters.

Torah says that a river went out of Eden to water the garden and from there it divided and became four headwaters. By this I am led to believe that
there were actually five rivers. I counted the river that was in the garden as the fifth river.

If indeed Eden was where the Arabian sea is then that could really raise a lot of eyebrows. So a good cartographer could erase your sea area and
build Gan Eden and the fifth river from the topical elevations that exist. Why so? Because all of the four rivers exist today.

I am quite old now but in my youth was a topical draftsman and made aerial maps for Army and Navy. I wonder if there are mapping charts of the
Arabian Sea?

When I saw this on Google earth, I knew this was not merely just a natural formation, because it was too long on both sides, in straight lines and at
a 45 degree angle.

I think it is important for people to realize that countries often were known by different names, even today we see that. For instance, China was
called Cathay, and there's the issue with Taiwan/Formosa, Ceylon/Sri Lanka and Burma/Myanmar. We could read a book from a thousand years ago where
the author mentions Cathay, but would the modern reader know it was talking about China?

India wasn't united at one time, they were known by their different state names, the same way we did for Germany before it was united. Some would say
Alsace Lorraine, but now it is again part of France.

Germany was known as Ashkenaz, while it might not be called that today, that is exactly what it was called to the rabbis in the Middle Ages, that's
what they called it, while the Germans themselves say Deutschland, in their own language.

People don't read the historicity in the Bible, because they don't want the Bible to be real. But the Bible itself is amazing in detail that it
gives historical people during historical events that are found in extra-Biblical sources.

You have to look for the subtlety. Today he is doing the same thing, you can become a god. Do you think you can become or are a god?

More Christian double talk.

Psalms 82
I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.

8 Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.

Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are "gods"'?

How interesting this all is to me, but since you didn't know, I suppose that to you, that's how I would look on other people, to you. I've got too
many groups in the admixture, but which one of them do you think I would say are serpent seeds and worthy to look down upon?

Actually, I did know that, as this isn't my first rodeo with you. You have told me about your ancestry a few times now. None of that is the point
of the thread though is it?

This thread is addressing the premise that humanity's blood line has been tainted with Satan's seed, seemingly, according to you and others in this
thread, through the birth and heritage of Cain. Besides the fact that Adam and Eve weren't real people, scripture doesn't back up the assertion
that Satan was Cain's father, not Adam.

a reply to: windword
I should never have said what I said in the way that I said it. Do you remember the following verse --

John_8:44 "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the
truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it."

Now when Jesus said this He was not referencing that those people actually were procreated by Satan. The genetics of celestial are not the same as
terrestrial. Naturally there is a substance change between the two. What Jesus was saying is that their minds were transformed into minds just like
the devil.

As I have said in the past, Torah as we now have it is not confirmed as the Torah that was translated into Greek and then into English as you now read
it. That Torah is lost to us as a word for word copy. What I did say is that there is tradition which says that Eve first had intercourse with the
beast and then Adam. By this tradition that is believed, by some, the beast would then be the father of Cain. It is still possible that both had
known Eve but in the human procreation there can only be one seed. In other words Adam was deceived.

It is suggested that Adam was deceived not only with the tree of knowledge but also in the birth of Cain.

Gen 5:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:

As you can see, some scholars interpret this as meaning that Adam's son, called Cain, was not in his likeness or after his image. He was therefore
in the image of the beast who was later transformed into a serpent and did not have the holy spirit. Now when you try to imagine the word beast it is
not even imaginable to us today but it was not a snake or serpent. The serpent was a punishment by God to the beast for his sin.

Also the bible does not actually say that all creation had the same language but as you read the scriptures you see where the beast of the field
talked with Eve and tempted her with vocalization. So scholars deduce that the creation all had one language.

This infers that Cain was not in the image of Adam nor of his likeness. Why else would this be noted in the manner that it was written? Then what is
to imagined from this? Could it be that Cain had neither the everlasting spirit of life nor the image that Adam had?

Now it is possible that either one or even both of these proposals are the truth. It may involve genetics or simply bad thinking on the part of Cain.
Or it could be both. So in light of this you are free to believe as you want and I respect your opinion as well as any of our opinions. You may
very well be right.

The "Sons of God" are deemed to refer to leadership in the line of Seth; the "daughters of men" is deemed restricted to the line of Cain.

But he was not expressing his view here, but showing the view others hold. His conclusion was much different. It's part of the overall view that
his conclusion counters.

Even so, its astonishing to see how many of you people still believe the Adam and Eve story to be true enough to be the basis of this mythological
femme fetale projection. If Adam and Eve weren't real people, then neither were Cain and his "daughters" nor the Sethites, the supposed "sons of
God".

Woman was not created from the rib of a man. It isn't God's law for women to be under men. It wasn't the ease with which a woman can be seduced
that brought about the schism within mankind's reality.

There's nothing spiritual or beautiful about these, so called, wedding references. Brides, in biblical times, weren't faithful women in love
with their men. They were 12 and 13 year olds, who had most probably never met the man their fathers arranged for them to marry, and where their
consent wasn't required. If their virgin "wicks" weren't prepared in time for their groom, when he arrived, it was because they were too
immature for marriage, and it was GOOD THING!

God didn't create a flood because he was disappointed with his creation. There were many floods in our history, not due to God's punishment, but
due to the melting of the polar ice caps and global warming. All this obsessing about God's wrath and poisoned blood lines justify war, "end
times" and the "Days of Noah" is nothing less than unhealthy.

There's nothing cuter than a feminist lashing out at the world.

An immortal garden tender gets lonely wanting a mate like the other creations have. Same with the fallen Angels, they wanted a submissive female to
satiate their lust after seeing Adam get one, jealousy.

I don't believe in "The Devil" or a Satan character that is opposed to God and out to destroy God's creation and try to drag us all to Hell with
him.

I don't believe the Torah is some lost secret history of mankind. The Torah is an oral tradition, a dance, a chant and an alphabet that encodes
natural law, a path of least resistance, much like the Tao.

The fruit is the representation of the self replicating design of the universe, in "god's image", whose seed is within itself, through natural
law.

You aren't a Jewish rabbi, which was who Jesus was talking to. And you aren't Hebrew, that David was talking to. So therefore, as you didn't
understand the context, you are a spirit, and God is a spirit, so you are a god in that sense as you are a spirit wrapped in a body of flesh.

Even the witch of Endor told Saul "I see gods ascending and descending" when she called up Samuel, the prophet.

The thing is this, as you are a spirit, what other spiritual authority is over you? Everyone has a spiritual authority. What Seede points out is
exactly what Jesus meant "you are of your father, the devil" because he was the spiritual authority over them.

Yes, the Psalmist is correct, everyone is a spirit, but under whose authority?

I get what you are saying, but this implies that God is limited in his patience. I do not think God can be limited or have limited patience. I do
agree with what you are saying. We can try to show the message to people and they will reject it every time. They are blinded somehow. Faith is all
that is required. I also know one fact. The nations are deceived. Until Satan is taken out of the way, we are all deceived in some way. Even the
elect can be deceived.

Matthew 24

For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.

I know there will be a time in the near future when the deception is pulled away and Christ reveals everything to mankind. That has not happened yet.
Once it does, the version you are expressing will occur after a time. The door will close. Revelation makes it clear that masses of people will
repent in the tribulation. We have also not seen this happen yet.

We have done a good job to this point opening eyes and ears to ensure the message is outlined. I believe these seeds are al that will be needed for
many to turn toward truth in the end. Possibly all.

I don't believe in "The Devil" or a Satan character that is opposed to God and out to destroy God's creation and try to drag us all to Hell with
him.

That is your prerogative and I respect your opinion. No one can really change a mind and it is not my intent to change minds.
You must die with your opinions the same as I must die with my opinions. We may both be wrong and if we are then that was our opinions. By the way
rabbinic Judaism agrees with your posted opinion and probably most of the world also fells the same way.

This thread is about Cain not being Adam's son, but Satan's. It's about whether or not real live "fallen angels" had sex with real live girls,
tainting "God's" human blood line, thus justifying God purging the planet through a flood. This same logic is being used by Christians to justify
God telling Moses and his ilk to go and kill the inhabitants of neighboring towns and cities, because of angelic blood.

It's the same logic that allowed people to believe that Mary was a virgin who was impregnated by an "angel of the Lord" and the same logic that
Paul used to urge women to cover their hair, "lest the angels".....

But we know better than that today. Adam and Eve are mythological, not historical characters. Fallen Angels weren't physically raping earth girls,
who were giving birth to giant monsters, and so "God" decided to flood the joint. No. Just NO!

Jesus, if he existed, wasn't the child of an angelic being, or spirit being. Like everyone else, if he existed, had an earthly mother and father.
He was no literal son of God any more than the pharisees were literal sons of Satan. I am no more or less a "child of the Most High" than Jesus was
or you are.

So, in answer to your question, I am no more or less a god than Jesus was or is a god.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.